The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Anyone know how to "turn off", so to speak, the "View Source" from right click AND from the menu on the top of Internet Explorer? I went to a site that had sucessfully done this, but cant remember the name.

Rick,
While there are ways that you can temporarily disable someone from looking at your source code, there is no real way to deter someone from getting at it if they really want to.

For example: If I am someone who is really intent on viewing your source code to see how you did something on your site, all I have to do is save the HTML file to my HD and open it up in notepad and voila, there it is.

Another method of deterring code stealers would be to place a copyright notice at the top of the source code like so:

<!-- Message -->

While neither methods are foolproof, the latter states that the intellectual rights of the code belong to you, and a lot of times (although not always) that is enough to get rid of a potential thief.

Disabling right click to 'view source' is worthless. There are about 5 other ways I can think of to view the source off of the top of my head. Including clicking on View, and source on the menu in IE..saving the document to disk and viewing it with a text editor are a couple.

This really depends on WHY you want to *disable* right-click. For example, I know of one site that published a lot of legal images from select genre movies (including original images/art) that were constantly being taken by others using right-click then Save Image As... the individual used the *disable* right click feature and instances of the images being stolen drastically decreased (by about 85%). So in this instance, the Webmasters are very pleased with the javascript routine even though they realize there are ways around the right-click *disable* feature.

Even so, these people did receive some complaints from indiviuals who frequently use the right-click method for going back and forward.

So it is really a question of "why do you want to use it?" If you don't have a really good answer then avoid it. Like others have pointed out, if someone wants to view the source of your site, it is very easy.

I know that, you know that, the Webmasters I spoke about know that, and others know that, but not everyone does. In the case of the individuals I sited, their site saw an 85% DECREASE in images being stolen from their site and used on other sites. These individuals were thus pleased with the results.

But again, they must also decide if the annoyance factor is worth it just like Webmasters who use pop-up windows must decide if the annoyance factor is worth it.

This isn't a "do it" or "don't do it" stance. I'm simply relating the experience shared to me by Webmasters of another site.

I know that, you know that, the Webmasters I spoke about know that, and others know that, but not everyone does. In the case of the individuals I sited, their site saw an 85% DECREASE in images being stolen from their site and used on other sites.

Very valid point. Nothing is hacker proof, and in the case of the No right click script, even more so. However, it does help to some degree in curbing surfers from lifting content off of a site. Now, whether such a script constitutes bad design, that's a whole different issue

Any image I care about being stolen on my site has a watermark in it with my name, year, and URL. If they want to go to the trouble of taking out the watermark and using the image, if they want it THAT bad..then fine by me :P

Originally posted by jaiem How do you put a water mark on a pic? More over if you see your pic on someone else's site how do you show them the water mark to prove where it orginated from?

Good question. There is a company out there called Digimarc which has created technology to watermark your graphics and other critical files without changing the display factors. This technology is supported by Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop plus among many other applications. For a fee they will spider the Internet looking for your graphics and let you know when the find them. Once they find them you have a record that the graphic belongs to you and that they didn't ask for permission to use it which will hold up in a court of law.

Watermarking isn't for the faint of heart because of the record keeping involved to do it properly nor is it cheap but it can be a very good investment if you are a professional whose image is your livelihood.

i spent alot of time at Javascriptsource.com and DynamicDrive.com also and collected a ton of scripts.
the one above demonstrates a great norightclicker on images, but still allows refresh, back, forward, etc.

that comment on just dragging the image to the address bar, i tried it and was blwn away. if word of this gets out to the public, we webmaster people would need more sophisticated ways of protecting out images.

but going back to the previous topic.
that script i mentioned is perfect for deterring novic image grabbers and still allowing them to right click to go back,forth, refresh and blah blah blah ...

again, think of the percentage of surfers who actually know about disabling Javascript in their browser, of viewing source or even dragging the desirable image to the address bar??

Boy, How depressing... All of this FAST advancement in website design and functionality and we're still struggling with protecting precious content. It seems SOMEONE would be able to figure out a more secure way to secure [especially] pictures and graphics on the web.

What about the use of permissions? Can setting a particular web page's permissions make a difference? Perhaps a combination of permissions and one of the suggestions posted here?